ArticleInternational ophthalmology2024
The practical and educational value of scleral buckling with chandelier illumination.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the surgical results in cases of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachments between standard scleral buckling (SSB) and scleral buckling with chandelier illumination (SBC) and to analyse the differences in SBC surgical results between an experienced ophthalmologist and inexperienced ophthalmologists.
methodsConsecutive surgical case series of 155 eyes that underwent scleral buckling were retrospectively reviewed and divided into four groups: SSB performed by an experienced ophthalmologist (n = 54), SBC performed by an experienced ophthalmologist (n = 52), SBC performed by inexperienced ophthalmologists (n = 40) and SSB performed by inexperienced ophthalmologists (n = 9). Then, these four groups were compared.
resultsNo significant differences were observed between SSB and SBC procedures both performed by the experienced ophthalmologist with regard to demographics, preoperative findings, contents of the surgery, intraoperative complications, retinal reattachment, postoperative findings and postoperative complications. Between SBC performed by the experienced ophthalmologist and SBC performed by the inexperienced ophthalmologists, no significant differences were found regarding intraoperative complications, retinal reattachment, postoperative findings and postoperative complications. Between SSB and SBC procedures both performed by the inexperienced ophthalmologist, a significant difference was found regarding intraoperative complications.
conclusionThere were no significant differences in surgical results between SSB and SBC when both were performed by the experienced ophthalmologist. In addition, the surgical results were equal between the experienced ophthalmologist and the inexperienced ophthalmologist as far as SBC was concerned. Learning scleral buckling skills by using SBC is a reasonable course of action for inexperienced ophthalmologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.